Is Richard Dawkins weakening?

The world’s most renowned atheist now says he ‘respects’ the ‘rather
profound idea’ of a ‘cosmic intelligence’

A correspondent kindly let us know of a BBC television interview with Richard Dawkins
which was first broadcast in Britain in September 2006, shortly after he’d
published his latest book The God Delusion. During that interview, Dawkins let slip a comment
which, on the face of it, seems to be an amazing softening in his (formerly?) scoffing
disdain for the idea that a ‘Supremely Intelligent Being’ is behind
the laws of the universe.

He made the comment while being interviewed with Alister McGrath on the BBC Heaven
and Earth television program, hosted by Gloria Hunniford.1 The interview opened with both men recounting
how they’d arrived at their present views—McGrath from atheism to belief
in a Creator, specifically the God of the Bible; Dawkins from ‘a Christian
upbringing’ to atheism. Note the two ‘events’ that Dawkins cited
as being pivotal in his slide into atheism:

He remembers thinking, ‘Since there are so many different religions, they
can’t all be right’, so he says he became an agnostic. [Indeed, they
can’t all be right, but it is logically fallacious to argue from this to ‘they
must all be wrong.’ For a counter to this, see: ‘Holy
Books?’]

Dawkins says the key atheism-inducing event was ‘really when I discovered
Darwinism’. [And he’s not the only one to have unfortunately (and erroneously)
been so influenced—see ‘Playwright
just plain wrong’.]

Sitting next to the eloquently-spoken McGrath,2
and under some pressure from interviewer Ms Hunniford’s challenge that Dawkins
had ‘no proof’ to justify his ‘there is no God’ stance,
in his following comments Dawkins—though still clinging to his belief in a
self-creating universe—appears to forget his past outspoken disdain for the
concept of an Intelligent Designer:

‘You can’t prove the non-existence of anything, so it’s impossible
to prove that God doesn’t exist. … None of us believes in Thor and
his hammer, none of us believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. … The best
explanation I could just about imagine somebody saying [would be] some sort
of immense cosmic intelligence—that I could …—I
mean, I don’t believe that but I could just about respect that.’

On the face of it, that’s quite a concession, compared to Dawkins’ previous
rants and disparaging railings against any such suggestion of an ‘immense
cosmic intelligence’ being behind the laws of the universe. And in his very
next sentence (below), Dawkins even described the idea as being ‘rather profound’!
However, he maintains his contempt for any suggestion that the ‘immense cosmic
intelligence’ just might be the God of the Bible:

‘What I can’t understand is how you go from that to buying the whole
Christian package—to buying
the Resurrection, the
Virgin Birth, miracles,
the forgiveness of sins—that’s
nothing whatever to do with this rather profound idea there may be a deep and
cosmic intelligence behind the laws of the universe.’

So for Dawkins to now describe the pre-existence of intelligence as a ‘rather
profound idea’ which he can ‘respect’ surely represents an astonishing
softening from his previous public utterances.

Putting aside Dawkins’ ongoing and ill-considered dismissiveness towards the
historicity of the Bible, his apparently conciliatory statements re a ‘cosmic
intelligence’, taken at face value, appear to be a giant concession on his
part—a backflip, even. And it begs the question: could this outspoken atheist
be weakening in his resolve to fight any and all notions which invoke an original
intelligence as being responsible for the laws of the universe? Might it even be
possible for Richard Dawkins to one day ‘do’ an ‘Antony
Flew’? (Note that
Flew, in his internationally-touted ‘conversion’, has not yet gained
a saving faith— in Christ.)

Certainly Dawkins’ comments to Gloria Hunniford seem at odds with what he
has written in the past. For example, he wrote that ‘deism is as bad as theism’,
and he has disparaged any view (note, even ones that allow for ‘natural-process’
evolution) that posits that ‘creative intelligence had some sort of prior
existence, and is responsible for designing the universe, with [its] laws and constants
…’—such a view, says vintage Dawkins, is ‘wasteful and unparsimonious’.3 And
he is utterly contemptuous of those who try to mix evolution and Christianity.

NASA, NOAO, ESA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

The universe is huge—yet the same fundamental laws of physics and chemistry
apply throughout. Where did those laws come from?

So for Dawkins to now describe the pre-existence of intelligence as a ‘rather
profound idea’ which he can ‘respect’ surely represents an astonishing
softening from his previous public utterances. Contrast this modern Dawkins with
the traditional Dawkins, who was adamant that the only ‘creative intelligence’
is the one resulting from Darwinian evolution: ‘Creative intelligence comes
into the world late, as the product of a long process of gradual change: the slow
evolution of nervous systems, or some other kind of computational machinery (which
may be secondarily designed by evolved nervous systems).’3

So is Dawkins weakening? I really don’t know. But here’s one thing I
do know, which Richard Dawkins might also be interested to know. About two years
ago, we at CMI received a prayer request from a supporter—that we would pray
for Richard Dawkins.

How could we possibly bring ourselves to pray, periodically for two years now, for
such an outspoken God-denying opponent of the Gospel, especially given his long-time
status as declared ‘enemy’ of creationist ministries such as CMI? For
those with worldly sense, no doubt it makes little sense. But in the light of these
famous words of Jesus—the ‘manufacturer’s instructions’,
no less—how could we do otherwise?

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour
and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his
sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that?
And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not
even pagans do that?
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43–48)

Dawkins, R., Religion? Einsteinian or Supernatural, RichardDawkins.net—The
Official Richard Dawkins website, <http://richarddawkins.net/article,123,Religion–Einsteinian-or-Supernatural,Richard-Dawkins>,
published 16 May 2006, accessed 17th July 2007. [As Dawkins points out in that essay,
when Einstein used the word ‘God’ it was highly likely he was not referring
to a Creator. (There’s a possibility that Dawkins in his BBC interview with
Gloria Hunniford was ‘equivocating’ in such a way, too—in which
case it would have been disingenuous, in the context of the interview.) See:
Einstein, the universe, and God. Return to Text.

Published: 3 August 2007(GMT+10)

The article you just read is free, but the staff time working on it … isn’t. Consider a small gift to keep this site going. Support this site